PR Measurement The Dark Side
Jul 08, 2021
AVEs. The shame on our industry.
If you are a PR consultant using ‘Advertising Value Equivalent’ as a method to evaluate media editorial this blog will offend you.
What is an AVE?
An AVE is a method of assigning a 'price' on editorial coverage based on what it would have cost to place an ad on the same space. But it's rarely the actual space, or the actual price, and of course, it's not an actual ad. To my mind, agencies that use AVEs are cowboys. Those who do it because their clients insist, are not consultants.
Here's an example of how two agencies might calculate an AVE for the same feature. The agency submits a client quote for a feature. The feature takes up a whole page but the quote takes four lines of text. The quote doesn't promote the core business per se, it contributes to the subject matter of the feature. One agency decides the quote 'space' equates to a quarter page ad. Another agency regards it as a full page, given no-one else was quoted on the page. Each takes the quarter page or single page ad cost, then multiplies it by three, because someone once said the placement of the quote within an editorial article is 'worth three times more than advertising'. Even though, the quote didn't actually promote the core business. It just contributed to the feature. One agency has placed lots of value on the space, the other less so. One agency looks more successful to their client than the other. Both are laughing.
Using AVEs is like investing your hard earned cash in a UK equity and receiving your profit back in Italian Lira because all those zeros make the CEO of the bank feel more successful. Would you invest your money in that bank?
In 1949
the IPR stated that AVE’s are: ‘A grave mistake that’s done more to undermine PR than any other’. Today, it states AVEs are ‘Unethical and dishonest’.*
If you use them, I’m looking at you.
I have three key issues with AVEs. (There are many more contained in this excellent article)
The first is that the metric equates the value of the PR execution to the space it takes up. Not the effect it has. The more we encourage clients to value PR by 'space', the more we undermine the professional skill of creating a story that shapes positive perception and having it placed by a trusted source. When you mark your 'value' on the space, you are distracting from the real work, which is being held accountable for the effect the placement has on your intended audience. Secondly, associating editorial coverage with an advertising cost fuels the perception that PR coverage is a form of advertising, and we continue on a perpetual path where businesses don't value the strategic role of PR. My third issue is that there is no professional guiding principle to how an agency must measure an AVE, so agencies are at liberty to make them up. They are the ultimate spin, and why the IPR now calls them dishonest.
This all started recently when I was asked by a client to start using AVEs because a PR agency representing a sister brand is and they would like to be able to compare the ‘Free of Charge’ coverage.
I was surprised and reasonably offended. I had no idea AVEs were still a thing. I have explained that I will never supply them, because we measure our work based on business goals and our clients can trust us to always be honest. Vista is 9 years old. In a previous agency, I educated all its clients why the AVE metric is nonsense, and I vowed I would never use AVE’s in this agency. I'm not being difficult, I just have integrity.
So, I investigated, and found leading media search agencies still supply them to the PR industry. I inquired with one provider. I was open and honest. I explained that supplying them 'legitimises a nonsense metric that does nothing but undermine our industry'.
They were incredibly professional and called a Zoom meeting where they explained, ‘It's industry demand.’ Adding, ‘We’re as surprised as you that they’re still about, because they’re an absolute nonsense.’ When I asked how they are calculated, we were advised it's complex. But not to worry, we can edit the number if we're not happy with their calculation.
After 25 years in this industry I'm tired of this. AVEs trivialise our industry, mock journalism and devalue advertising.
In my opinion, no PR using them can identify as a ‘Consultant’.
If those consultants are a member of the CIPR industry body and are shown to be using them, they could face disciplinary action.
Heard this adage from back in the day?
A woman walks into a bar. A man approaches her and tells her how good he is and that she needs him. That’s advertising.Another man keeps interrupting their conversation buying drinks, being entertaining and distracting, that’s direct marketing (or now social media).Another woman sees the awkwardness of the situation and walks over. She points to a man sitting alone at the bar and says, "You want to talk to him". That's PR.
At its core, PR is persuasion, perception, behaviour change, brought about by third party endorsement. Its end game is that other people think, act and talk favourably about a person or organisation. Or how Google rates it. So tell me how...
1. proving value in media editorial by looking at the rate card to buy advertising on the space...
2. without reducing the price of the space, because no-one buys rate card
3. which isn’t the actual space the editorial mention took up...
4. or any reflection on how you buy ads on digital...
4. and doesn’t take into account whether the piece was positive about the business.....
5. or if it’s sitting alongside any competitor businesses with a more favourable report....
6. and THEN multiplying the rate card number by 3, or even sometimes 6, because maybe the media was really important and editorial endorsement is 'worth more' than advertising (which, as a final insult magnifies the point that you can't compare the two)
Evaluate PR delivery using the AMEC framework.
If your only objective is media coverage, prove its value by looking at key message penetration, tone, strategic media placement, favourable audience response. Because that is the game we are in.
This blog
explains how Vista measures its performance on a continual journey of learning and growth with our clients.
Please feel free to comment on this post justifying AVEs. I’d welcome the enlightenment and the lively conversation.
*Sourced facts from an enlightening presentation from Richard Bagnall, Chair of the AMEC social media measurement committee who sourced from AMEC.org
A recent study by CORQ, the digital trend forecasters, has highlighted the significant impact of creator partnerships on audience engagement, providing valuable insights for brands and PR professionals. At Vista Public Relations, we are dedicated to staying ahead of industry trends and insights to better serve our clients, so here we dive into the key findings of the study and their implications for the evolving landscape of brand communications and consumer engagement.
The Power of Pinterest: A Comprehensive Overview of Its Impact on Businesses
